• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

GOP blocks nomination to head new Consumer Financial Agency

A

Ausm

Lifer
Can any rightist out here explain why this guy wasn't good enough to run the new agency to protect consumers?

The vote to overcome the GOP filibuster was 53-45, seven short of the 60 needed to advance the nomination. One Republican, Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts, joined Democrats in support of Cordray. Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, voted "present."

Looks like Mr.Brown AKA Mr.Wall street is feeling the heat being down in the polls in his upcoming re-election bid.

😀

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-blocks-obama-nominee-head-financial-agency-161833201.html
 
The one complaint that I heard was that it gave one man too much power. Repubs want a bi-partisan board. Grid lock in D.C.
 
Ausm said:
Can any rightist out here explain why this guy wasn't good enough to run the new agency to protect consumers?
Click to expand...


Maybe if you read the article, you would have had your answer

Republicans said that until the Obama administration agrees to changes at the agency, they will keep blocking the president's pick from taking charge.
Click to expand...

Or is this not the answer that you desire and therefore want something to better please you political taste?
 
None of the GOP have raised any concerns about Cordray. They opposed the Consumer Protection Agency as part of Dodd-Frank. Apparently, this is the new political standard - when a piece of legislation is passed over the objection of one party, the objecting party will either try to defund it or else refuse to appoint anyone to head the new agency. The point is to get a second bite at the apple. I think Obama should just do a recess appointment.
 
By all means we should let the President have more unconstitutional authority that he already has acquired. Republicans specifically stated that they had no issue with the man being appointed. They have issue with the new Agency that has an enormous amount of unchecked power. An agency that, as currently written, would report to the FTC and not to Congress itself and have zero oversight.
 
xBiffx said:
By all means we should let the President have more unconstitutional authority that he already has acquired. Republicans specifically stated that they had no issue with the man being appointed. They have issue with the new Agency that has an enormous amount of unchecked power. An agency that, as currently written, would report to the FTC and not to Congress itself and have zero oversight.
Click to expand...

That is the law of the land. Senate is tasked by the Constitution to advise and consent on appointees, not use appointments as votes on the laws that created the positions. So if anyone is assuming unconstitutional authority, it's the Republicans in the US Senate. Nothing in the US Constitution grants a minority in the US Senate the power to undo a duly passed law without a vote by both houses and presidential signature to repeal it.
 
senseamp said:
That is the law of the land. Senate is tasked by the Constitution to advise and consent on appointees, not use appointments as votes on the laws that created the positions. So if anyone is assuming unconstitutional authority, it's the Republicans in the US Senate. Nothing in the US Constitution grants a minority in the US Senate the power to undo a duly passed law without a vote by both houses and presidential signature to repeal it.
Click to expand...

There is no requirement to justify the reasoning behind blocking an appointment so you have bitch and moan all you want. Checks and balances have upsides and downsides.
 
xBiffx said:
There is no requirement to justify the reasoning behind blocking an appointment so you have bitch and moan all you want. Checks and balances have upsides and downsides.
Click to expand...

The downside is that undermines the Constitution. There is nothing about filibusters in the Constitution, there is a lot about laws being passed by majorities of both houses and Senate's role to advice and consent on appointees. This Republican filibuster is admittedly being used by a minority to block implementation of a duly passed law.
 
senseamp said:
The downside is that undermines the Constitution. There is nothing about filibusters in the Constitution, there is a lot about laws being passed by majorities of both houses and Senate's role to advice and consent on appointees. This Republican filibuster is admittedly being used by a minority to block implementation of a duly passed law.
Click to expand...

You fail to see the constitutionality in this then. The constitution specifically outlines this power to the Senate, they don't need reasons for their decisions. That is the check. The President can try another person (which would fail) or work together with Congress to craft a better Agency. That is the balance.

I'll bet you have no issue with the constitutionality (or lack thereof) of the president's czars right?
 
xBiffx said:
You fail to see the constitutionality in this then. The constitution specifically outlines this power to the Senate, they don't need reasons for their decisions. That is the check. The President can try another person (which would fail) or work together with Congress to craft a better Agency. That is the balance.

I'll bet you have no issue with the constitutionality (or lack thereof) of the president's czars right?
Click to expand...

It is abuse of the filibuster and appointee process to assume powers to repeal laws that the Constitution reserves for majority of both houses, not a minority in one house. The filibuster is not in the constitution at all.
 
senseamp said:
It is abuse of the filibuster and appointee process to assume powers to repeal laws that the Constitution reserves for majority of both houses, not a minority in one house. The filibuster is not in the constitution at all.
Click to expand...

The agency cannot start without an appointment to lead it. That is how the law was written by all of Congress and agreed to and signed by the President. If that is a problem, perhaps it shouldn't have been passed in the first place. Laws have consequences.
 
The Republicans blocked something that the other party says is good for America.

Ausm, please give us your specific opinions in how this agency will protect the interests of consumers. Seems to me the first goal is to figure out what exactly the agency is, and the probability it will accomplish its goals.


(oh, wait, this is another lefty-circle jerk. I'll assume the proper position: Thank you unions, may I have another!)
 
cubby1223 said:
The Republicans blocked something that the other party says is good for America.

Ausm, please give us your specific opinions in how this agency will protect the interests of consumers. Seems to me the first goal is to figure out what exactly the agency is, and the probability it will accomplish its goals.


(oh, wait, this is another lefty-circle jerk. I'll assume the proper position: Thank you unions, may I have another!)
Click to expand...

No Republicans blocked something that is the law of the land. It's not a he said she said thing. It's GOP minority vs implementation of a law.
 
senseamp said:
It is abuse of the filibuster and appointee process to assume powers to repeal laws that the Constitution reserves for majority of both houses, not a minority in one house. The filibuster is not in the constitution at all.
Click to expand...
The filibuster is a rule that the Senate has setup for itself.

Both sides have used it and neither side will get rid of it in case they feel that they need it at a later time.

when the Dems had control of the Senate, they did not try to remove the rule.

Sorry, but what you want is for your benefit. The Senate feels otherwise.
 
senseamp said:
No Republicans blocked something that is the law of the land. It's not a he said she said thing. It's GOP minority vs implementation of a law.
Click to expand...

It is the Senate obeying it's rules.

The agency exists.
The Republicans feel it needs to be tweaked.
The President feels otherwise.

the Republicans have found a way to force their concerns to be heard.
Obama can appoint when the Senate is not in session if he chooses.

But the Dems wailed when Bush did it.^_^
So which is it to be; follow a precedent to do an end around Congress or negotiate with the Republicans on the issues,
 
woolfe9999 said:
None of the GOP have raised any concerns about Cordray. They opposed the Consumer Protection Agency as part of Dodd-Frank. Apparently, this is the new political standard - when a piece of legislation is passed over the objection of one party, the objecting party will either try to defund it or else refuse to appoint anyone to head the new agency. The point is to get a second bite at the apple. I think Obama should just do a recess appointment.
Click to expand...

That won't happen. Tea Party Patriots will keep the senate open so he can't do that without consent of the states, abusing his executive office. Just like they did last time.
 
EagleKeeper said:
Maybe if you read the article, you would have had your answer



Or is this not the answer that you desire and therefore want something to better please you political taste?
Click to expand...

I want to hear your answer....Please wow me with a nonpartisan analogy.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top